Tag Archives: Lancet Oncology

Preliminary Findings of a Large British Study Indicate That CA-125 Blood Test & Transvaginal Ultrasound Test Can Detect Early Ovarian Cancer

Posted on by

“Ovarian cancer has a high case—fatality ratio, with most women not diagnosed until the disease is in its advanced stages. The United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) is a randomised controlled trial designed to assess the effect of screening on mortality. This report summarises the outcome of the prevalence (initial) screen in UKCTOCS. …”

“Background

Ovarian cancer has a high case—fatality ratio, with most women not diagnosed until the disease is in its advanced stages. The United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) is a randomised controlled trial designed to assess the effect of screening on mortality. This report summarises the outcome of the prevalence (initial) screen in UKCTOCS.

earlydetecttrialdesign1

The United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening - Overall Trial Design

Methods

Between 2001 and 2005, a total of 202,638 post-menopausal women aged 50—74 years were randomly assigned to [1] no treatment (control; n=101,359); [2] annual CA125 screening (interpreted using a risk of ovarian cancer algorithm) with transvaginal ultrasound scan as a second-line test (multimodal screening [MMS]; n=50,640); or [3] annual screening with transvaginal ultrasound (USS; n=50,639) alone in a 2:1:1 ratio using a computer-generated random number algorithm. All women provided a blood sample at recruitment. Women randomised to the MMS group had their blood tested for CA125 and those randomised to the USS group were sent an appointment to attend for a transvaginal scan. Women with abnormal screens had repeat tests. Women with persistent abnormality on repeat screens underwent clinical evaluation and, where appropriate, surgery. This trial is registered as ISRCTN22488978 and with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00058032.

Findings

In the prevalence screen, 50,078 (98.9%) women underwent MMS, and 48,230 (95.2%) underwent USS. The main reasons for withdrawal were death (two MMS, 28 USS), non-ovarian cancer or other disease (none MMS, 66 USS), removal of ovaries (five MMS, 29 USS), relocation (none MMS, 39 USS), failure to attend three appointments for the screen (72 MMS, 757 USS), and participant changing their mind (483 MMS, 1,490 USS). Overall, 4,355 of 50,078 (8.7%) women in the MMS group and 5,779 of 48,230 (12.0%) women in the USS group required a repeat test, and 167 (0.3%) women in the MMS group and 1,894 (3.9%) women in the USS group required clinical evaluation. 97 of 50,078 (0.2%) women from the MMS group and 845 of 48,230 (1.8%) from the USS group underwent surgery. 42 (MMS) and 45 (USS) primary ovarian and tubal cancers were detected, including 28 borderline tumours (eight MMS, 20 USS). 28 (16 MMS, 12 USS) of 58 (48.3%; 95% CI 35.0—61.8) of the invasive cancers were stage I/II, with no difference (p=0.396) in stage distribution between the groups. A further 13 (five MMS, eight USS) women developed primary ovarian cancer during the year after the screen. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive-predictive values for all primary ovarian and tubal cancers were 89.4%, 99.8%, and 43.3% for MMS, and 84.9%, 98.2%, and 5.3% for USS, respectively. For primary invasive epithelial ovarian and tubal cancers, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive-predictive values were 89.5%, 99.8%, and 35.1% for MMS, and 75.0%, 98.2%, and 2.8% for USS, respectively. There was a significant difference in specificity (p<0.0001) but not sensitivity between the two screening groups for both primary ovarian and tubal cancers as well as primary epithelial invasive ovarian and tubal cancers.

Interpretation

The sensitivity of the MMS and USS screening strategies is encouraging. Specificity was higher in the MMS than in the USS group, resulting in lower rates of repeat testing and surgery. This in part reflects the high prevalence of benign adnexal abnormalities and the more frequent detection of borderline tumours in the USS group. The prevalence screen has established that the screening strategies are feasible. The results of ongoing screening are awaited so that the effect of screening on mortality can be determined.

Funding

Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK and the Department of Health, UK; with additional support from the Eve Appeal, Special Trustees of Bart’s and the London, and Special Trustees of University College London Hospital.”

Primary Source

Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS); Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS); Usha Menon MD, Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj Ph.D., Rachel Hallett Ph.D. et. al, The Lancet Oncology, Early Online Publication, 11 March 2009 doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70026-9.

Comment

During an interview with the New York Times, Dr. Ian Jacobs, director of the Institute for Women’s Health at University College London, and director of the trial, discussed the optimism and the caveats associated with the preliminary clinical study results as follows:

We have now demonstrated we can pick up the vast majority of women with ovarian cancer earlier than they would have otherwise been detected and before they have symptoms, .. and that a good proportion of those women have earlier stage disease than we would normally expect them to have. … [W]omen thinking of having this must understand and realize that there’s a possibility it will do more harm than good. We have reason to think it will save lives, … and then the question is, will it save enough lives to balance out the harm it does? [Emphasis added].

Robert Smith, director of cancer screening for the American Cancer Society informed the New York Times that “[w]e’re not even remotely close to knowing how to screen women of average risk with these tests, or even if we should.” Mr Smith added that it is important to run large clinical trials, but that the preliminary results of this study must be interpreted with caution.

Secondary Sources

Radiofrequency Ablation Effective in Treatment of Primary Lung Cancer & Metastatic Lung Disease

Posted on by

“… Our study shows that percutaneous CT-guided radiofrequency ablation yields high proportions of sustained [complete responses] in properly selected patients with primary or secondary lung malignancies, and is associated with acceptable morbidity,’ write the authors.”

“Treatment options are limited for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are not surgical candidates, and surgery is frequently not feasible for patients with secondary lung malignancies. However, according to new data published online June 17 in the Lancet Oncology, radiofrequency ablation could be an option for patients who are unable to undergo surgery, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy.

Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation is a relatively new and minimally invasive technique that has been used to treat solid tumors. In particular, it is becoming a viable option for unresectable liver malignancies. Although the use of radiofrequency ablation is at an early stage of clinical application for other types of solid tumors, recent studies have shown that it has potential in the treatment of lung, bone, and renal malignancies. The authors note that several single-institution case series have suggested that radiofrequency ablation is a feasible option for patients with unresectable or medically inoperable pulmonary tumors.

In this study, Riccardo Lencioni, MD, associate professor of radiology in the department of oncology, transplants and advanced technologies in medicine at the University of Pisa, in Italy, and colleagues designed a prospective single-group multicenter clinical trial to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of percutaneous computed tomography (CT)-guided radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of NSCLC. The study also included patients with metastatic disease to the lungs.

A series of 106 patients, with a total 183 lung tumors measuring 3.5 cm or smaller in diameter, were enrolled in the study. Of this group, 33 patients had been diagnosed with NSCLC, 53 had metastasis from colorectal carcinoma, and 20 patients had metastasis from other primary malignancies. All of the patients were deemed unsuitable for surgery, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy.

The primary end points were technical success, safety, and confirmed complete response of tumors. The authors defined technical success as the correct placement of the ablation device in all target tumors with completion of the planned ablation protocol. Secondary end points of the study included overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and quality of life.

Study participants underwent radiofrequency ablation in accordance with standard rules for CT-guided lung biopsy. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 1 and 3 months after the procedure, and then at 3-month intervals for up to 2 years.

A total of 137 procedures were performed, and treatment was successfully completed in 105 of 106 patients (99%). From this group, it was possible to assess the primary end point of a confirmed complete response in 85 patients (80%). The researchers noted a confirmed complete response of all targeted tumors that lasted for at least 1 year after treatment in 75 of 85 patients (88%), with incomplete ablation and evidence of local progression in at least 1 treated tumor in the remaining patients. There was no difference in tumor responses to ablation between patients with NSCLC and those with metastatic lung disease.

Overall and Cancer-Specific Survival

Patient Subgroup Overall Survival at 1 Year Overall Survival at 2 Years Cancer-Specific Survival at 1 Year Cancer-Specific Survival at 2 Years
NSCLC 70% 48% 92% 73%
Stage 1 NSCLC n/a 75% n/a 92%
Colorectal metastases 89% 66% 91% 68%
Metastases from other sites 92% 64% 93% 67%

Although there was no procedure-related mortality, 27 of the procedures were complicated by a large or symptomatic pneumothorax that required drainage. A second major complication was the occurrence of pleural effusion in 4 procedures, which also necessitated drainage.

‘Our study shows that percutaneous CT-guided radiofrequency ablation yields high proportions of sustained [complete responses] in properly selected patients with primary or secondary lung malignancies, and is associated with acceptable morbidity,’ write the authors.

They note that the rate of overall survival was greatly affected by the recruitment of patients with severely impaired pulmonary function, with substantial comorbidities, or both. All participants were deemed unsuitable for surgery, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy, or they had exhausted conventional treatment options. Under these circumstances, it was not possible to reliably compare radiofrequency ablation survival curves and those achieved with other treatments.

‘Additionally, the patient population was heterogeneous and included patients with NSCLC and patients with pulmonary metastases from different primary malignancies, and the study was not designed to provide evidence of survival benefits,’ they write. ‘A randomized controlled trial comparing radiofrequency ablation versus standard treatment options is now warranted to prove the clinical benefit of this approach.’”

[Quoted Source: Radiofrequency Ablation Offers Promise in Treatment of Lung Cancer (access requires free Medscape registration), by Roxanne Nelson, Medscape Medical News, MedscapeToday, June 19, 2008 (summarizing the Lancet Oncology article entitled, Response to radiofrequency ablation of pulmonary tumours: a prospective, intention-to-treat, multicentre clinical trial (the RAPTURE study); Lencioni, R. et. al., Lancet Oncology DOI:10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70155-4 (early publication on-line), June 18, 2008).

Comment: The Lancet study findings indicate that radiofrequency ablation is a fairly safe and very effective treatment for lung metastases up to 3.5 cm in size. Importantly, the Lancet study findings indicate that there was no difference in tumor response to ablation between patients with primary lung cancer and those with secondary metastatic lung disease caused by another form of cancer originating outside of the lungs.  Any women with ovarian cancer metastatic lung disease should show this study to her doctor to determine if she is eligible for radiofrequency ablation. As noted under the “Additional Studies, Clinical Trials & Other Information” section below, a 2007 U.S. study found pulmonary radiofrequency ablation for inoperable lung cancer safe and effective. Moreover, a 2006 U.S. study found radiofrequency ablation safe and effective for the treatment of ovarian cancer metastasis. Accordingly, percutaneous radiofrequency ablation can be effective in the treatment of ovarian cancer metastatic lung and liver disease for select women.

Additional Studies, Clinical Trials & Other Information: